One of the things about discussions like this one is people don’t realize how ridiculous posts like the above sound.
Of course, if I were ever fool enough to ask for parenting advice from the SDMB I should expect nothing else.
Regards,
Shodan
They do sound ridiculous, and we all realize that. What’s amazing is that you think posts in which people do the opposite, harassing gay people for their gay parenting, are any less ridiculous.
I see nothing above that breaks rules. The statements are stupid and should be addressed with logic or scorn but no need for a mod to do anything once they were posted in the appropriate thread/forum.
Calling someone a fag and the like is something that should be addressed but just general racist/homophobic mumblings appearing in threads should be dealt with by the posters not by the mods.
Just my 2c
Did he just call me foolish?
Having been “fool enough” to ask here for parenting advice, I still was helped greatly by most of the posters on that thread. But you say I should have expected nothing less [than bad feedback, presumably]. What I shouldn’t have to expect (or at least shouldn’t have to put up with) are repeated, offensive, off-topic comments that clearly stem from someone’s anti-gay agenda. It’s the latter comments we’re discussing. Your personal biases seem to be getting in the way of your ability to take in and consider the specific issue here.
Shodan, I have been to many gay pride parades and don’t really find them seeking victimhood or in your face. You don’t have to go after all. I like them and think they are a lot of fun. YMM obviously varies.
I think what was happening in that thread was more akin to threadshitting, anyway.
No, I’m quite clear on the issue. You mentioned something that you thought was relevant, and then tried to rule out any reference to it when you didn’t like some of the responses. That happens a lot on the SDMB.
If you don’t want to talk about that aspect of it, don’t bring it up.
I am not aware of any way an OP can enforce a rule that says “I want advice but don’t tell me anything I don’t want to hear”. That’s not the same thing as personal attacks, in case you were hoping to try that tack next.
Regards,
Shodan
That’s quite true. Likewise, you don’t have to start threads on the SDMB, and you don’t have to complain about it if the thread doesn’t include responses that are 100% to your liking.
Regards,
Shodan
You’ve skipped many significant posts. In the pit thread, check out where L-hand of dorkness pulls an offensive post verbatim and replaces gay with Jewish. Seek out, as well, posts where it’s pointed out that there were personal attacks in some of the doggedly anti-gay remarks.
Further more, it would be perfectly natural for a straight mom writing about the M Day topic to bring up her husband. No one would then blame the subject of the topic on the fact that she was heterosexual.
This may be the last I should respond to you because frankly I think you’re just shit-stirring and I don’t want to be wielding swords at phantom fighters.
One suggestion, though: Try to consider the details of what people are saying and not just railing against anything said that doesn’t fit your agenda.
But why not complain? It’s not as though complaining means you automatically have to agree, either; rather, it occasions a discussion.
See, it’s one thing if someone had said, "Could it be that he’s bothered by having two moms?
But what was said was “You are shoving your gay propaganda down his throat”.
That’s a bit obnoxious and not something that would be said to a hetero couple.
That’s the opposite of clarity. It was relevant only because both she and her spouse were affected by it. It was relevant in the same way that church is relevant in “I was in a car accident in the church parking lot” is relevant: it clarified one small aspect of the event.
tapu did not try to rule out any reference to it. Someone asked if her wife was also upset. This was a reference to the fact of her lesbian marriage. She did not try to rule out this reference. This would be akin to asking whether the other driver in the accident was a member of the same church.
What tapu objected to were bigoted off-focus references to it, references that attacked her marriage and family as inferior. This would be akin to commenting that maybe if you spent more time focusing on your driving and less time worrying about the invisible sky pixie, you wouldn’t get in an accident.
Here’s what you’re not getting: not all references to the same thing are relevantly similar.
Or, to put it in logical fallacy terms, it’s a slippery slope, perhaps a regards slope, that you’re appealing to the molehill’s authority on.
A reasonable sentiment, and not one the outcome of which I wouldn’t be happy with, assuming a conversation about hate speech policy can take place.
But the problem with that general perspective (i.e., not to pick on LWIBR, but that general approach) is that it tacitly assumes
• that there are a finite number of outgroups against which hate speech can exist; and
• that we know them, have identified them all.
If you’re unclear on why that’s a problem, hop into your time machine and journey back to, say, the 1970s. You’d find people ready to sign on to the same statement, but although they would probably have hate speech against gay and lesbian people on their list, they might look at you blankly if you raised the subject of hate speech against transgender people, for example. And they might argue with you about bisexual people belonging on the list.
Think you’re being a little too restrictive here. The question was about mother’s day, by the way he has two moms. It may have not been explicit but frankly I think it’s beyond silly to wave that point away with " we’re exactly like a straight couple!" Sure, except he’s got two caregiver moms nagging him about mother’s day.
Of course she can complain about the responses if she starts a thread. And I can respond by pointing out that her complaints are silly and unjustified. But read the thread. She didn’t want a discussion, at least one that included any non-laudatory mention of something she brought up. That’s why she kept trying to have the mods shut the thread down.
tapu responds in the same way to either kind of response. She mentioned that she was in a lesbian relationship because she thought it might be relevant, then angrily tried to shout down any mention of it that wasn’t admiration. She kept trying to have the thread locked so she could be sure no one would be able to comment on it.
It’s hardly the first time in SDMB history that someone had a thread go in directions she didn’t expect, or where she was asked questions that she didn’t like.
IOW it was clear. She and her spouse were affected by it. Thefore it was relevant.
Here, of course, you are simply and obviously wrong. She did.
Regards,
Shodan
She “brought up” that her son has two moms, quite relevant to questions about Mother’s Day, and it’s a situation which is not terribly uncommon (and exists in many non-homosexual families). She didn’t mention that she was in a lesbian relationship until someone asked the details of the two-mom situation.
Her being in a lesbian relationship had nothing to do with her question, and nothing to do with her OP. Someone asked later and she answered, but the homosexual-parents-part had nothing whatsoever to do with her OP and her question.
False. It was not part of her OP, and not part of her question. If you don’t believe me, why not just ask her? Here, I’ll do it: tapu – did you mention that you were in a lesbian relationship to answer a question from another poster, or because you thought the fact that you and your partner are lesbians was relevant to the question in your OP?
“Two moms” doesn’t necessarily equal “lesbian couple”, and is only relevant because the holiday is all about moms. At least, that’s how I interpreted the posts – I hope tapu can clarify. And I hope you’ll believe that she’s telling the truth, whatever her answer. I certainly will.
It was not that she was looking for ‘admiration’ for her marriage that I got, but just that she wants to believe gays are no different then straights (and the marriages and families from them) and not even look at the possibility that there may be some differences that could be helpful to acknowledge, reflect upon and even celebrate.
Quite ironically in another thread she does state a difference between gay and straight marriages, (paraphrasing here) in that gay marriages there is no chance of a accidental pregnancy.
This isn’t correct. She mentioned that her son had two moms in the OP, and explained what she meant in the OP when asked.
If one says something in the OP, and then explain what you meant in your next post, then you meant it in the OP.
No, not false at all. She mentioned it in the OP, and confirmed later that she meant to do so.
It did in this case, and the OP confirmed that she meant to refer to it in her first post.
She already clarified that by “my son has two moms” she was talking about the fact that she was in a lesbian relationship. She said as much. So yes, I believe her.
Perhaps she believes that the fact that she is in a lesbian relationship makes no difference to the situation. That would be an opinion, not a fact that she can establish by assertion. And why start a thread asking for opinions if you don’t want to hear other opinions?
As I said, I am not sure it is possible to start a thread asking for opinions but enforce the requirement “but don’t tell me anything I don’t want to hear”. Especially if you put something in the OP that you think might be relevant, explain what you meant by putting it in the OP, and then saying “but you better not mention it again except to pat me on the back”. Opinion threads don’t always run like that.
Regards,
Shodan
She answered a question about the “two moms” thing – what she meant was “he has two moms”.
It was answering a question – what she meant, at least what I interpreted, was “my son has two moms”.
Not by my interpretation, but hopefully tapu can clarify.
And if she says “I only mentioned my lesbian relationship because someone asked about it, not because I think it is relevant to my question”, would you believe her? I hope that she’ll clarify, and we’ll see. I could be wrong. Do you recognize the chance that your interpretation might be wrong as well? Is there a tiny, tiny chance that Shodan might be wrong?
What you claim “she did” was " tried to rule out any reference to" there being two moms.
That’s why, when kanicbird wrote
tapu responded with anger at the reference to both moms, and most definitely did NOT respond with:
Note that this is just one of several examples where she clearly does NOT try to rule out reference to his two moms. What, pray tell, makes these references different?
This is presented as a hypothetical but it appears to be a sort of redaction of a real post. What thread is it from?
Yeah, I don’t get the idea that being a lesbian couple has nothing to do with the issue of her son celebrating Mother’s Day. As noted, many kids only celebrate Mother’s/Father’s day because the other parent reminds and pushes them. It’s a bit different when there are 2 moms. Plus, should the kid be celebrating both moms on Mother’s day? I would think so, unless there is some understand that one is the “real mom” and the other is just “a parent”.
A similar issue might come up in a single parent household.
It’s not about whether one is “cool with it” or not. It’s about having an opposite sex parent to drag you, often kicking and screaming, into getting something for the other parent. That’s pretty much what it was like when I was growing up. My dad took the lead in celebrating Mother’s Day and we mostly followed along.